


















yrk*- 
»/'-• •• 


I • .t" V 

, v> V', 


. ■ ;» J •■ If-:.- ■' ■ 

% | S - . V a ■ ' * ^ i . 


I*-’* *1_ y *' 

• 1 * 


‘ . ' 




% 


r 'Ti ^ ’ 

'*.. I,. • 






■ 'iaJ '' 


tk 


• . . Kf 

• .0;*^ ■: 


ii\ 


J • > 


r j ’’ 


I ^ *. JW^ ' , 


' ■' ;'f‘''"JS ’ai-■ 


«* 11 I'm 







icr>? 


r ' Vl^afT* 


' , ^ 1 I ' k iv # . 




. i 





• / •«: 





■ •'• ■ ■ r. '■' iS 


- '* v^rr-*'H''■■'■- ’ '' X'X ■-^'■'■■■'X^'^lfciilj 


^ > 






1^ 



iv . 


u ll . ^ 




♦ * 

MI 1 


'■>4 






» I 


. Aid, /‘U *’ ‘ 'V 

-AJ I »■ I ■* .. 

’*.. ?' ^fc- ■ ' ' ^ . ^ 




’ f* 




■- ‘ • Ai ■ ’7 

'tr ,"'‘'t'-A’i-'*- ,■„ 




i rr- 




<*> 

e • 


#\ , i.. 

'• , • 

f - . 


'*33 


HO 


.Vi'' 


.'V 

« I • - •■*•. : 


• ■ 


^ M ' ■ . » , ' M 

i I 


....Kf'ms ri 

^>^V?•,■•■<».-i;vf'VA . -A'^’’ ' 

.;. -W ■:• 'VV'V*™- f ■ v'--^ 

X '•“'3 i‘} ^ J' 

• ' ■ vv - . •■. 

;';x«fev ». • i : --'^ 




K 


? 4' ' • c C 

■ v»>' 


#« 


f 


C/I 


'K 


■ 7»‘ . . 


Ay. 


■i*^ -•.‘/' -iw 





i'* ■ " V f' 

^ ’Ll?: V ' .^r ■ .. , 


', ■;. it. ' rdVi,.-- .tV >- ., • „.v’ Sv*. :* .^;: v 

'‘"• j j ''-’"'r ’l. "“i V^ «■''. 1 . m > ■' v ; 


. I i 


mr 


•■■* viV^' V 

«» .»• 'M* ' '..rr-' 


. ^.* .’* .i7?1 . 

I' 7 ^ 

t •••■ *v 




[a; . v‘t ■/; >.rji -.W; ■i;;' 

V(? .‘,■^/.4k . ■S’iiV.r 


^4- 




^ji \ 

•jf ' < 


;'v‘,f»-, -.':; ..y« 


M 






'■/ 






EL ^ •'•- V--L ■^- * -;■ • i .SR^'V ' 4 -v 

rBi..’'^1 « .' ' ■" I'■-^''.'i■ / 



•• . _ 




'll 

* 

7:^1 

te ^ 



■ _ ,* 

• 


.i^. 

‘4 • 

> - r> 





^ t 




i 


, , . t 

i ^ 


V V 



* 

i/^*i 

y;'v 

» 1 

■ X ' *. 

.4*k 




r • 

. ' 


•'ja ^ 7. ^■■'- '-<» 


^ 4 


'• ■. I r 

••\ \'' rVv ’ ii . t •"> 


• 4 ^4 .- . 




4 r • ' « j i 

i 7. ^ ',-1* '/-* ' •■' '• 

I*! ^ 




./ 1 



■• ‘tv :V 
■’^.' ■'• , aii. 

rr • . 


tel- _ i. 

Lii. i 


■ ■ u 


t k-* 






f tt* 



♦ •■' ^■' 'i, i '- . • ' |V< ♦•.^'*' fil *'■'■/ ■' i-' 

• '• * - ' > ‘ t '‘***V‘~\ f X’ I l•SJn 

f-"- 44f '?r>'‘'- t;,. . ,■:% .-^tx ' •' ^;... '^ 

. ‘-l.V . r% ' ^ 


t * *1 V—,-' ■ ^ 'W'* ■ ■ * • % , ,1 . V -• jV V"”' ' X ’■''.»« • • 4 ' • 1 ^ If w 

llV* '■ ‘ ■' di' 1'^"''* ' ' '''^''■*1' 


■>! " 


Sc'i' 









W% 

^' 

f*'' 


- • ';’ . . \ . ■ ■- -• ■ * .;■-‘'f 

s • . , • , V ^r ' i-. ■■■-‘'<-^--‘y\ . ' 



, . <' f' -» 

^ T i • > 4 i • *' 


r ; 


/•■„.. 


I i 


«* .* 


/ I 


' jf* 


- . 


*f 






ii ri-T"- >:v-ii',,... ,Ky,jL' ,ft;^,; 




•r*- •; 


r-- 


■w. ' > ' .• 

, -• 

\ 





I- 


i'r\ •*! 




4 'V 




- 


f 




•'Sa , 


' '., /: ■ '-‘^'''*^’*:'*.Vfi 






" • 



, f 


.1^ 


• . ' 

I 


^ t. •■i r- »' ^ 

"u ^ - '. 

'.r,->v 

V -^> 7 ■ • 


<r- 

*f ^ 

I •' ' f 

*■ ' ■ 

T'*'- > .w - 


■'••f 

^ r . 


* ‘ V ,■ v^.;j 


V' - 







. # 

* • I 


’’i- ‘ 

■^4 


!»■ 


. ^‘l > /’ 


» 

A \ 


'I* j 





.• -Av ■ K ■^^'' 

*■•■ .• ^ Jl •T*' 


■ 

' • -j . 


. ,'i; ',. I.T.'J 

. j 7,.., 

.' ■''^'iiftJ'"... lis 

.■'''/..I'. ..-<4'. 


l-'f • 

•^' .:7. 


x-- .* 








•-, * .’* * ' 

. ^ ! • 


;. ■ ~ ' :^'i :^:m 

^7' v^'^■ • '>\.* r^' 

j!fc|^i4.. =^i 31* 7k’ 'ift’ji'kr'r,' ’ ' ,Wrtv _ ' .., .i. ix,, 


I' 

^ ■ \ > .y^p W’ifflw "''Jt 

‘:A^\ y*.^.rV 




•. --; ’ • .1 


t-. F,v.v'»i'ai! 

ffc I. i 

i 


^ ^ W * ^4 ^ ' . \^ “I ' O J « . \« 




;.', 'J-V'. 

-:■•’>■ .'•,V.V 

' . » . I 4 T 








• / 


' '-^'■‘,1 /'lU' '‘^T. 

' , » ^ Jll. V.I.' 

• I '.' 


• I 'V 


■fH'' 




j-^*" *1^ .“iv 

7 

' • / 

**' 


/ ' 




/ , fV . ,./ 

' .1 


>* 

% 


n-. ■ 




. ill / 



■ .jp' i» * '• 

/ >. .' Avi 

, 17 ♦ 


m_ 

HpQ 


-« 


■ « .r ■ 


.f?.. ■ , ,"V.,^VI. 




I# 

r» 


-J. 


•K 

• 

9k 


‘.'J •/* 

IP ■* "^a' 

.*'f 


U-'“- \i- /.V." 


# %• 


r sX 


ut ^ . 


t.' 


•< ■ '-.f 


A'* 














f. 




*■ ': ' '- W M 

3^*'v 'j* ■ 1 » I*'' '■ '* ’>*'■ ■ *■• *’ i'l 

-■ ■■ 


' • * 


'J ' **‘- 

. V . • .'. ■» V 


'* ■/* 

■My 




I # 









VtU^- ^ 


■* 


gsr'n ',v::w< . ■ •/' . ^ ...--.E''., 

Has ':■. 


1M 


- U- : 


V X-' 



4 ■■ 1 


5i 



W 


. ■■■■•■•VO ' ' « >., ■^ . 

•H44 




r- -s' X. • * 



.in*-* • 

P';.' 

P:,.‘ I'to" - ■'•'.>1^ 


■1 


■•>- r4 








rrw>vvV>\’.. ^'jS 

■' ’>-i- ■'* •■ * 


I % 




[m. 


■ 




ra 




4. 


’V>. 

II I 


-’v' ^ 

1 


I f 


’^7. 


* i 







y r 




' **i 




flu 


w. 


fk 




ri' 


'.'■A* 




U"-V.,- ., . -.e;—^/ii 




•t 







^,, :r;m:, : Mv£;, 
' ’■•■ -’#•■■ ■' ■ • •*' \ 


1 


D 




■.^•V^';> . -yJK. 






'lir 




r 


• i 


•> #»- * 1 1 ’ ' 








!t'«: 


m Jj, :‘?ii:m-^hy£m 


h‘* 


M' :k!^ :h ::-' ;-'■ ’ll#'',',..•■!•.'/, ..--i 

SHR^Ko tor-^ifW", a’, -'•<■''■ '’V 

Sir ' ^Ty,- ■" • ;v•‘.’^’fia^l:_ 






i* 1 V» ; V ig 



aIM 


vf>: 


?■ 




. * .u 


/ . 




4fr''k^ k.*il 




y -1 




h’ 


t 


i V 


*IL- 


Zy 


. ’SaP^-Vi> \ ■, 


I v t i 




k«« t 





illife.:;'-''- V-,:.; ■■• ■ i :.-...f. tott;*!*' L^y... .. ;;.:;-->.:"'&s6^-i;v: 


^ f 


» •% 


f 


Ki.' 


JS 




Supplement to 
THE ANNALS of 

THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL 
AND SOCIAL SCIENCE 
MAY, 1910 


4^^ 7 


Significance 
of the Woman 
Suffrage Movement 


Session of the American Academy 
of Political and Social Science 
Wednesday eveningy February P, 1910 




PHILADELPHIA 

The American Academy of Political and Social Science 





r * 







* 1 




I 





B’ *raksfER 5 

JUL 7 J910 

t 

I 

» 






SUPPLEMENT TO 

THE ANNALS OF THE AjMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL 
AND SOCIAL SCIENCE 


May, 1910 


SIGNIFICANCE OF THE 
WOMAN SUFFRAGE MOVEMENT 


SESSION OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL 
AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, WEDNESDAY EVENING, 
FEBRUARY 9, 1910 


PHILADELPHIA 

The American Academy of Political and Social Science 
1910 


Copyright, 1910, by the American Academy of Political and Social Science 












CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Introductory Remarks of the President of the Academy. 

L. S. Rowe 5 

Introductory Remarks of the Presiding Officer. 

Robert L. Owen 6 

The Logical Basis of Woman Suffrage. 

Anna G. Spencer lo 

The Position of the Anti-Suffragists. 

Mrs. Gilbert E. Jones i6 

The Woman Suffrage Movement in Great Britain. 

Alice Paul 23 

Answer to the Arguments in Support of Woman Suffrage. 

Lyman Abbott 28 

Woman Suffrage an Aid to Social Reform. 

Mrs. Frederick Nathan 33 

The Inadvisability of Woman Suffrage. 

Charles H. Parkhurst 36 



• T 


T’ 





I 

















INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 


By Dr. L. S. Rowe, 

President of the Academy, Presenting the Presiding Officer. 


Whatever may be one’s view of the suffrage movement, no one 
can close his eyes to the fact that the women of the country have, 
within a very short time, taken the question out of the haze of 
ridicule in which it was enveloped, and secured for it the serious 
attention of the country. 

It is a noteworthy fact that the men of the country, with some 
notable exceptions, have shown themselves singularly obtuse in 
their estimate of the situation, interpreting the movement solely in 
its political aspects, and without regard to its broader economic 
and social bearings. 

Our presiding officer of this evening has been within this 
exceptional class. In the convention that framed the new constitu¬ 
tion for the State of Oklahoma he took his stand on this broad 
ground, and although unsuccessful in obtaining all that he desired, 
he at least forced a full and fair consideration of the subject. 

I have much pleasure in presenting him to you, as presiding 
officer of the evening—the Honorable Robert L. Owen, United 
States Senator from Oklahoma. 


( 5 ) 




INTRODUCTORY REMARKS OF PRESIDING OFFICER 


By Hon. Robert L. Owen, 
United States Senator from Oklahoma. 


Mr. President, Ladies ^nd Gentlemen: When invited to pre¬ 
side at this meeting of the American Academy of Political and 
Social Science, for an evening devoted to the discussion of equal 
suffrage for women, I felt honor bound to do so. First because of 
my duty to women, my greatest benefactors, but above all by my 
duty to serve the good of society, the welfare of all the people, to 
the best of my understanding. 

Women compose one-half of the human race. In the last forty 
years, women in gradually increasing numbers have been compelled 
to leave the home and enter the factory and work-shop. Over seven 
million women are so employed and the remainder of the sex are 
employed largely in domestic services. A full half of the work of 
the world is done by women. A careful study of the matter has 
demonstrated the vital fact that these working women receive a 
smaller wage for equal work than men do and that the smaller wage 
and harder conditions imposed on the woman worker are due to the 
lack of the ballot. 

Many women have a very hard time and if the ballot would 
help them, even a little, I should like to see them have it. Carroll 
D. Wright, National Commissioner of Labor, in an address at Smith 
College on February 22, 1902, said: “The lack of direct political 
influence constitutes a powerful reason why women’s wages have 
been kept at a minimum.” This evidence is thoroughly established 
by the rise in women’s wages for a given amount of work in those 
countries which have established the equal suffrage, as. New 
Zealand, South Australia, West Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, 
Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and Idaho. 

I do not understand how a self-respecting man, after being 
satisfied of the truth of this statement, can deny to woman, as a 
human being, this opportunity to make her living decently, at a fair 
wage for a given amount of work. I know the ancient hostility and 
prejudice against women having equal rights. Under the old system 

(6) 




Introductory Remarks of Presiding Officer 


7 


of government where the wages of men were abundant to take care 
of the home, and where the wife was mistress of a home, industri¬ 
ously engaged by the occupations of home, and supplied by a loving 
husband with materials for home use, it was a beautiful system and 
required no exercise of the suffrage. That system is almost entirely 
gone in many localities. It is absolutely gone with regard to millions 
of women, who work for their living with their own hands. More 
than seven million women are now supporting themselves outside the 
home and many millions of women in addition, are supporting them¬ 
selves in the houses of those who are well off, by performing domes¬ 
tic service. Women whose husbands are well to do, do not appreciate 
the importance of equal pay for an equal amount of labor, desired by 
the poor woman who works in factory, or work-shop and perhaps is 
required to stand on her feet from ten to sixteen hours a day in order 
to earn a bare living. The rich woman does not see the neglected 
girl in the sweat-shop where her hopeless poverty is often preyed 
upon by the vice of men. I intend to do what I can to give women 
and working women, a fair opportunity to receive equal pay for 
equal work. I shall not mock their necessity by calling them queens 
of the homes, and then denying them the ballot, which is necessary 
to enable them to receive equal pay for equal work. 

Equal ptiy for equal work is the first great reason justifying this 
change of governmental policy. There are other reasons which are 
persuasive: First, women, take it all in all, are the equals of men 
in intelligence, and no man has the hardihood to assert the contrary. 
To do so, "subjects him to an instant intellectual and spiritual peril, 
which justifies the argument that such an assertion can not be 
maintained. The intelligence of women is devoted to objects in 
which they take a peculiar interest, and the same is true with men. 

The man is usually better informed with regard to State govern¬ 
ment, but women are better informed about house government, and 
she can learn State government with as much facility as he can 
learn how to instruct children, properly feed and clothe the house¬ 
hold, care for the sick, play on the piano, or make a house beautiful. 
It avails nothing to say that women are not familiar with State 
laws. They know pretty nearly as much as the average man, and 
if they had the right to participate, would soon know quite as much 
as the average man, and this would be a distinct gain in government 
for the whole community. 


8 


The Annals of the American Academy 


The woman ballot will not revolutionize the world. Its re¬ 
sults in Colorado, for example, might have been anticipated. First, 
it did give women better wages for equal work; second, it led 
immediately to a number of laws the women wanted, and the 
first laws they demanded were laws for the protection of the 
children of the State, making it a misdemeanor to contribute to 
the delinquency of a child; laws for the improved care of defective 
children; also, the Juvenile Court for the conservation of wayward 
boys and girls; the better care of the insane, the deaf, the dumb, 
the blind; the curfew bell to keep children off the streets at night; 
raising the age of consent for girls; improving the reformatories 
and prisons of the State; improving the hospital service of the State; 
improving the sanitary laws, affecting the health of the homes of 
the State. Their interest in the public health is a matter of great 
importance. Above all, there resulted laws for improving the school 
system. 

Several important results followed; both political parties were 
induced to put up cleaner, better men, for the women would not 
stand a notoriously corrupt or unclean candidate. The head¬ 
quarters of political parties became more decent and the polling 
places became respectable. The bad women, enslaved by mercenary 
vice, do not vote and good women do vote in as great proportion 
as men. Every evil prophecy against granting the suffrage has 
failed. The public men of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and Idaho 
give it a cordial support. 

The testimony is universal: 

First, it has not made women mannish; they still love their 
homes and children just the same as ever, and are better able to 
protect themselves and their children because of the ballot. 

Second, they have not become office-seekers, nor pothouse poli¬ 
ticians. They have not become swaggerers and insolent on the 
streets. They still teach good manners to men, as they always have 
done. It has made women broader and greatly increased the under¬ 
standing of the community at large of the problems of good govern¬ 
ment; of proper sanitation, of pure food, of clean water, and all 
such matters in which intelligent women would naturally take an 
interest. 

It has not absolutely regenerated society, but it has improved 
it. It has raised the educational qualification of the suffrage, and 


Introductory Remarks of Presiding Officer 


9 


has elevated the moral standard of the suffrage, because there are 
more criminal men than criminal women. In Colorado and Utah 
only two per cent of the prisoners in the penitentiary are women, 
and in Wyoming and Idaho there are no women prisoners. 

The venerable Mrs. Eva Moore, of Guthrie, Oklahoma, put the 
argument in a nut-shell, when she said, in giving her reasons for 
wanting the ballot: “I am a human being, an individual, seventy-three 
years old, making my own living and my opportunity to do so is 
controlled by the law. My property rights are subject to the law. 

'Tf I commit a crime, they may deprive me of my liberty, or of 
my life. Is there any righteous reason that I should not have a 
voice in the election of worthy, honorable men to make just laws 
and administer them?” 

The great doctrine of the American Republic that ''all govern¬ 
ments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,’* 
justifies the plea of one-half of the people, the women, to exercise 
the suffrage. The doctrine of the American Revolutionary War that 
taxation without representation is unendurable, justifies women in 
exercising the suffrage. One great advantage, however, of the suf¬ 
frage is in raising women to a position of greater honor and dignity 
so that the children of the land shall show and feel greater rever¬ 
ence and honor for their mothers, and that the mothers may teach the 
elementary principles of good government while they are teaching 
them good manners, morality and religion. 

No nation can rise higher than its women, and for this reason 
it is of prime importance to give the women of the land the suffrage, 
so as to elevate their status, and this, not alone for their sake, but 
for the sake of the whole community. 

It is not alone that women need the ballot to protect their 
rights to a livelihood and to protect their children from vice, and 
to afford their children every means of instruction and guidance a 
civilized law should afford, but the country needs the female in¬ 
fluence, because this influence will be especially exerted to improve 
the State charities. State sanitation, the protection of children and 
the beautifying of cities, and no possible harm can come from, 
according to the women of the land, this new respect and dignity. 
Are we afraid to trust our own wives, our own mothers, our own 
daughters! We can trust them with our lives and be assured of 
their fidelity and loyalty, and I, for one, intend to give them in 
public the confidence and trust I entertain in my private life. 


THE LOGICAL BASIS OF WOMAN SUFFRAGE 


By Mrs. Anna G. Spencer, 

Assistant Leader, Society for Ethical Culture, New York City. 


The significance of the woman siififrage movement is two-fold; 
it is a response to the general movement of democracy toward 
the individuation of all members of all previously subjected or 
submerged classes of society; and it is also a social response to the 
new demands of citizenship which have followed inevitably the new 
and varied increase in the functions of government. 

The response to the general movement toward democracy has 
in less than one hundred years changed the condition of woman 
in the chief centers of so-called Christian civilization from that of 
“status” to that of “contract”; a complete change from that condi¬ 
tion in which the married woman while her husband lived could 
neither hold property, make a business contract, receive wages in 
her own right for her own work even outside the home, acquire 
legal power over her own children, act as guardian for a minor 
child, her own or another’s, or in any manner acquire the rights of an 
adult individual, under the law. During her marriage, she was, as 
a minor child, protected in some manner against “abuse” (of which 
in quantity and in quality men and not women were the judges), 
but in no sense invested with the rights of an independent adult 
person under the law or in social, educational or industrial 
citizenship. 

It was, of course, inevitable that the doctrine of the rights 
of man should come at last to include the rights of woman, just 
as it was inevitable that the rights of white men should come at last 
to include the rights of black and yellow and brown men. The 
great eighteenth century struggle in human progress was for the 
recognition of what Charles Sumner called “That equality of rights 
which is the first of rights.” It was for a scheme and practice 
of political organization which should deny special privileges to 
any, which should secure liberty and greater justice in all the rela¬ 
tions of life to all the different classes of men than had before been 
known. Although the winning of such measure of democracy in 

(lo) 




The Logical Basis of Woman Suffrage ii 

government as we have attained does not bring in the millenium, 
and has not yet been applied perfectly enough even to men to fully 
measure its influence for good, any student of history can challenge 
the most pessimistic observer of American life to furnish an ex¬ 
ample of any more aristocratic form of government which has re¬ 
sulted in as high an average of physical, mental and moral well¬ 
being for the majority of the people as even such a partial democ¬ 
racy as our own. Women, since Abigail Adams demanded of the 
framers of our Constitution some recognition of the rights of 
women in their deliberations, have seen that there is no argument 
that can be framed for equality before the law for all classes of 
men that does not also apply with equal force to both sexes. The 
woman suffrage movement, however, is only as old as the immortal 
Seneca Falls meeting of 1848. That was a “Woman’s Rights 
Meeting,” and only incidentally and with hesitation pledged to a 
demand for the ballot; its chief stress being laid upon higher educa¬ 
tion for women, better industrial conditions, more just professional 
opportunity for qualified women, and larger social freedom; to¬ 
gether with a strong appeal for the legal right of adult women to 
have and to hold property and to secure that “contract power” that 
marks the dividing line between a responsible person and a child or 
an imbecile. 

There are two arguments, and only two, that can possibly be 
brought against the application of the general principles of democ¬ 
racy to law-abiding and mentally competent women—one is that 
women are not human beings; the other that they are a kind of 
human beings so different from men that general principles of right 
and wrong proved expedient as a basis of action in the develop¬ 
ment of men do not apply to them. 

I take it that this company would not subscribe the ancient 
belief that “women have neither souls nor minds” but are a “delu¬ 
sion and a snare,” invented for practical purposes of life, but not 
to be counted in when the real life of humanity is under considera¬ 
tion. Are then women of such a different sort of humanity that 
they do not need individual protection under the law, do not require 
the mental and moral discipline of freedom and personal respon¬ 
sibility for the development of character, are justly and fully 
provided for through the political arrangements of men, by men 
and for men, and therefore should be forcibly restrained from 
complete citizenship? Some, many, seem thus to believe. 


12 


The Annals of the American Academy 


The fact that women as a sex, not the favored few of a 
privileged class, but women as a sex have suffered every form of 
exploitation at the hands of men and without redress until very 
recently (an incontestable and easily demonstrated fact, attested 
by every law book of all Christendom), is sufficient answer to that. 
The further fact that until women initiated and carried through a 
great struggle, which although bloodless and pacific on their part, 
lacked no element of martyrdom, no woman could learn anything 
but the most elementary scraps of knowledge or develop her voca¬ 
tional power or attain industrial opportunity of any sort commen¬ 
surate with her needs, is further attestation that women are not so 
different from men that they can be educated without a chance to go 
to school, be able to protect themselves against prostitution or 
ignoble dependence through self-support without the legal right 
to earn their own living or the legal right to hold and manage 
their property. Women are not so different from men as to become 
strong in character without having the discipline of moral responsi¬ 
bility or become broad minded and socially serviceable without the 
opportunity to “learn by doing” the duty of a citizen. Men and 
women are different, but not so unlike that they can become fully de¬ 
veloped human beings in circumstances totally different. 

The political democracy fought for in the eighteenth cen¬ 
tury, and partially obtained, led inevitably to the educational 
democracy struggled for and partially obtained in the nineteenth 
century, and most strikingly illustrated in the American public 
school. The industrial democracy now striving toward realization 
must follow the sharing of political rights and duties and the educa¬ 
tional preparation for good and wise citizenship which we have in 
such large measure already attained. Now the democratizing of 
the family and of the social life is an inevitable and more and more 
conscious demand in order that we may have a home in which real 
and not sham, full-orbed and not partial, democracy may be nur¬ 
tured and developed. Unless women are made a vital and a re¬ 
sponsible part of democracy in education, and democracy in political 
service, and democracy in industrial organization, they cannot bear 
and rear fit citizens for a genuine and a matured democratic State. 
Thus, unless you repudiate democracy, you must finally include in 
its range of social influence all classes and both sexes. 

The second element of significance in the woman suffrage 


The Logical Basis of IVoman Suffrage 


13 


movement is the social response to the new demands of citizen¬ 
ship made by the new type of State which has been developed in 
this latter stage of human progress. The family and the Church 
used to take care of education; industry used to be a personal 
concern of domestic handicraft. Now all the functions of social 
order have been differentiated and started on separate but inter¬ 
related careers. The Church is not now a legal power; the school 
has become a function of the State; the new industrial order has 
necessitated legal protection of the weak and ignorant against 
the strong and shrewd. The State has gradually, and in these later 
days with astonishing celerity, taken over not only education, but 
charity and constructive social effort toward the common welfare. 
A thousand details of truly spiritual activity, which once were held 
solely within the sphere of the domestic and religious life, are now 
concerns of Government. 

What are the great functions of social service for which “human 
beings of the mother sex” have been held chiefly responsible since 
society began? The care, the nurture, the development of child- 
life ; the care of the sick, the aged and the infirm; the relief of 
the unfortunate; the protection and care of the defective; the 
general ministry of strength to weakness. These are the functions 
that the modern State has taken over from the home and from 
the Church. These are the functions the modern State cannot per¬ 
form zvithout the direct and varied aid of zvomen. These are the 
modern State activities that make the largest army of public em¬ 
ployees the teachers, of which ninety per cent, are women; and 
the next largest army the caretakers of the sick and insane and 
unfortunate of every kind, of which at least three-fourths are 
women. “Yes,” but the anti-suifragist says, “women should work 
as subordinates for society through State employment, but they 
should not become a part of the political power of control and 
supervision.” Then, if that be so, women are degraded from their 
ancient position in the office of personal ministry; for women, 
under the old regime of education, had command of the training 
of all the girls and all the little boys; and under the old regime 
in charity not only did the work, but determined what that work 
should be. 

Now at last, struck with this fact, the anti-suffragist has taken 
the monstrously grotesque position that women should fill appoint- 



14 


The Annals of the American Academy 


ive positions of supervision and even of control in education and 
philanthropy, but should never be voted for or vote even on the 
political side of these functions. But an office like that of judge 
or overseer of the poor, which in one State is “appointive,” may 
be in another State “elective.” The constant tendency in the United 
States is for private initiative to create models in the educational 
and in the philanthropic field, for the appointive powers of execu¬ 
tive office and legislative bodies of a few States to adopt these 
new models as a part of the State provision through specially 
appointed commissioners or boards, and for other States finally 
to copy the new idea through the regular channels of elective 
procedure. In private education and philanthropy women are ex¬ 
pected to bear more than their full share in support, control and 
activity. When the State takes over tentatively as an experiment, 
some private enterprise, then, say even some of the most conserva¬ 
tive anti-suffragists, a governor, or mayor, might properly take over 
also a selected woman or two to manage the interest of education 
and charity thus absorbed. 

When, however, the people take over the school for the blind, 
the custodial home for the idiot, the asylum for the insane, the 
children’s home, the care of the poor, the establishment of the 
city playground, the manifold enlargements of the public school 
provision for our cosmopolitan population, at what point does it 
become unwomanly for women to retain charge of their own special 
and inherited business? Where does it become improper or use¬ 
less or unnecessary for women to protect children and youth, and 
with power to determine the conditions surrounding sister women 
in reformatories and prisons, and to secure right care for the 
aged, infirm and unfortunate? No living human being can find 
that point. Thousands of students of the modern social order and 
its historical bases in more primitive social organization can prove 
to any unprejudiced mind that social harm has resulted whenever 
and wherever these new functions of charity, of education, of 
social control, of public amusement, and of social effort toward 
personal welfare, have been taken over by the State from the home 
and the Church and the domestic shop and factory, without taking 
over also some recognized power of control by expert women as 
well as the subordinate service of women in general. 

If, then, women are human beings and not so unlike men as 


The Logical Basis of Woman Suffrage 


15 


to render all human experience useless in the matter of their char¬ 
acter development, they, too, as well as men, must be sent to school 
to political duty and responsibility if they are to rightly serve as 
mothers and teachers of potential citizens of democratic States. 

If, then, the State, as can be easily proved, has taken on in 
modern times functions of dynamic social influence in education, 
in charity, in protection and development of the personal life, thus 
undertaking the things which, from the foundation of society, 
have been peculiarly “woman’s sphere,” it is as absurd as it is 
unwise and socially harmful to deprive the State of the service 
of women in all capacities of both subordinate activity and trained 
supervision and control. 

This all means on both these grounds that women must be 
given the duty and the responsibility as well as the protection and 
the power of the ballot in order that there may be established a 
free, recognized and obvious channel by which the value of women’s 
contribution to the State may be conserved and effectively applied 
to social welfare. 


THE POSITION OF THE ANTI-SUFFRAGISTS 


By Mrs. Gilbert E. Jones, 

Chairman National League for the Civic Education of Women, 
New York City. 


The Anti-Suffragists are not organizing or rushing into com¬ 
mittees, societies or associations, and their doings are not being 
cried out from the house-tops. Yet they show by undeniable facts, 
easily verified, that woman suffrage bills and proposals have been 
defeated and turned down at the rate of once in every twenty- 
seven days in the State legislatures for the last twelve years. 
The ‘"Antis” have been especially successful in Kansas, where, in 
1887, women obtained municipal suffrage. For twenty-two years 
the suffragists have tried to extend it to State and Federal suffrage, 
but without success, and the “Antis” seem to know why. 

A great many States have granted to women school suffrage, 
but only a partisan or sectarian issue will bring out the woman’s 
vote. In Massachusetts women have voted on school boards, and 
after thirty years’ training, only two or three per cent, of the 
women register to vote. This hardly can be pronounced “success,” 
or worth while. “Antis” do believe, however, that women can 
well serve on educational boards. With universal manhood suf¬ 
frage there cannot exist such a condition as would warrant the 
suffragists to cry “taxation without representation is tyranny.” 
Men do not vote because they pay taxes, why should women? 

In the early history of our States, men and women voted be¬ 
cause they paid taxes, property or money voted. But qualified suf¬ 
frage has given way to “universal suffrage,” because property 
qualifications were unrepublican, undemocratic, favoring the aris¬ 
tocratic wealthy citizens, and showing a decided discrimination 
against the educated and poorer citizens. The Anti-Suffragists 
generally believe the suffragists are asking for universal suffrage 
and not qualified suffrage, which tax-paying suffrage means. Tax¬ 
ation means protection and not representation. All books and 
authorities on “taxation” will tell any one caring for further in¬ 
formation of this fact. Vatel, “Laws of Nations,” says: “The 

(16) 




The Position of the Anti-Snffragists 


17 


right to tax an individual results from the general protection 
afforded to himself and his property ” 

Judge Story says: “Where there is no protection there can 
be no claim to allegiance or obedience.” “Taxes are a portion 
which each individual gives of his property, in order to secure and 
have the perfect employment of the remainder. Governments are 
established for the protection of persons and property within the 
limits of the State, and taxes are levied to enable the government 
to afford and give such protection. They are the price and con¬ 
sideration of the protection afforded.” (J. Ingersoll, Circuit Court 
of the United States.) “There is nothing poetic about tax laws 
—When they find property, they claim a contribution for its pro¬ 
tection.” (Lowery, Chief Justice.) 

Taxation without representation is tyranny, but we must be 
very careful to define what we mean by the phrase. If we adopt 
the suffrage attitude, “I pay taxes, therefore I should vote,” the 
natural conclusion is that everybody who pays taxes should vote, 
or we have a tyrannical form of government. Remember that this 
argument is used in an unqualified way. We have a “tyranny” 
here we are told, because some women pay taxes, yet do not vote. 
If this is true without any qualification, it must be true not only 
of women, but of everybody. Accordingly this government is 
tyrannical if corporations pay taxes, but do not vote; if aliens pay 
taxes, but do not vote; if minors pay taxes, but do not vote; if 
anybody pays taxes, but does not vote. The only correct conclusion 
is, not that women should vote because some of them pay taxes, but 
that every taxpayer should be given the privilege of the ballot. 
Under our system of indirect taxation it is almost impossible to 
say that everybody is not a taxpayer—therefore it would seem that 
every man, woman and child, naturalized or alien, and every cor¬ 
poration, should vote. The absurdity of this is evident Even if 
woman suffrage were granted, fifty per cent, of the population 
would still be without the ballot, and every one of these could stand 
up and say, as the suffragists- are saying now, “Taxation without 
representation is tyranny.” “I am taxed but unrepresented, there¬ 
fore I am being tyrannized over.” 

It is clear that the phrase is distorted. The distortion lies in 
the fact that the suffragists are trying to make an individual right 
out of a principle of government. If women vote because they pay 


18 The Annals of the American Academy 

direct taxes, many will be enfranchised who never earned a dollar, 
and who own their property wholly through the accident of inherit¬ 
ance. Tliousands of women will be discriminated against, in favor 
of a few. Hundreds of women teachers would never have the 
advantages that a favored aristocracy of wealth would have. There 
would be a complete inequality of political privileges for women. 
Statesmen, lawyers, citizens, and the wise men from the North, 
South, East and West have been consulted, and have conscien¬ 
tiously discussed this question of who should vote, with the result 
that tax-paying qualifications have been done away with, and uni¬ 
versal manhood sufiFrage has been generally adopted. 

A very conscientious investigation by this League can not find 
that the ballot will help the wage earning woman. Women must 
resort to organization, association and trade unions, and then they 
can command and maintain a standard wage. Supply and demand 
will do the rest. Women are not well trained and often very de¬ 
ficient and unskilled in most of their occupations. They are gener¬ 
ally only supplementary workers and drop their work when they 
marry. When married, and home and children are to be cared for, 
they are handicapped way beyond their strength. Married women 
should be kept out of industry, rather than urged into it, as scien¬ 
tists, physicians and sociologists all state that as women enter into 
competitive industrial life with men, just so does the death rate of 
little children increase and the birth rate decrease. 

Anti-Suffragists deplore the fact that women are found in 
unsuitable occupations. But the suffragists glory in the fact that 
there are women blacksmiths, baggage masters, brakemen, under¬ 
takers, and women political '‘bosses’^ in Colorado. 

The suffragists call this progress, independence and emancipa¬ 
tion of women. Antis asks for more discrimination and better selec¬ 
tion of industrial occupations for wage earning women. Knowing 
that the average woman has half of the physical strength of the 
average man, and the price she must pay when in competition with 
him is too great for her ultimate health, and her hope of mother¬ 
hood, the ‘‘Antis” ask for caution and extreme consideration before 
new activities are entered upon. 

Miss Sumner in her book, “Equal Suffrage,” published by the 
Collegiate Equal Suffrage League, states that woman suffrage in 
Colorado has not fulfilled its expectations, and that the improved 


The Position of the Anti-Suffragists 


19 


salaries to be paid to women have not been realized. The average 
wages, even of women teachers, are still decidedly lower than those 
of men. She also tells us that many of the best laws in the interest 
of women and children have been passed, sometime before women 
were granted the franchise. Had women never voted, those laws 
would probably have been passed anyway; and in States where 
women do not vote, one finds better conditions for women, children 
and wage-earners than in the four suffrage States. This all goes 
to prove that the ballot in the hands of women is not essential for 
reforms, good laws, or the betterment of women and children. 

The suffrage leaders say that a woman without the vote has 
no self-respect. We must then look to the suffrage States to find 
the fulfillment of the woman’s true position, complete—worthy, 
exalted and respected. But what do we find when we look at Utah! 
Women have voted there for forty years. Mormonism and woman 
suffrage were coincident. By the very nature of its teachings, as 
indicated by Brigham Young, the basis of the Mormon Church is 
woman,—and the Mormon Church is the greatest political machine 
in the four suffrage States. 

Women suffragists have lived openly and defiantly in a state 
of complete polygamy in Utah, and yet they have had the vote and 
political power. The only form of the Turkish harem found in the 
United States is in this woman suffrage State. Here we find the 
answer so often asked,—“If women vote, would a priest have power 
or influence over the women of this parish?” Utah answers the 
question—the Elders command—the woman’s religious fervor 
makes her obey, and her hero worship of the Elder weakens her 
judgment. Polygamy was maintained in Utah for these reasons, 
and it was only when the Federal Government stepped in, that these 
un-American and unwholesome conditions were forbidden by law. 
Even now, that the Mormon woman can again vote, polygamy is 
not wholly done away with. Authorities say it never will be, until 
woman suffrage ceases, as sixty per cent, of the voters are women, 
and they keep the Mormon Church in power, as the Elders dictate. 

With this state of affairs, do we find women more self-re¬ 
specting where they vote, than where they do not? Is Utah a more 
self-respecting State for women, than Massachusetts? Martha 
Cannon was elected state senator. She was on the ticket against 
her husband, who was nominated for the same office on the Re- 


20 


The Anitals of the American Academy 


publican ticket. I copy from the Salt Lake Herald a few sen¬ 
tences taken from an interview with Mrs. Cannon, state-senator- 
elect. When asked if she was a strong believer in woman suffrage, 
she answered, “Of course I am. It will help women to purify 
politics.” “Women are better than men. Slaves are better than 
their masters.” She was then asked, “Do you refer to polyg¬ 
amy?” “Indeed I do not” she answered. “I believe in polygamy, 
—a plural wife isn’t half as much of a slave as a single wife. If her 
husband has four wives, she has three weeks of freedom every 
single month. Of course it is all over now, but I think the women 
of Utah think with me, that we were much better off with polyg¬ 
amy. Sixty per cent, of the voters of Utah are women. We con¬ 
trol the State. What am I going to do with my children while I am 
making laws for the State? The same thing I have done with 
them, when I have been practicing medicine. They have been left 
to themselves a good deal. Some day there will be a law compelling 
people to have no more than a certain amount of children, and then 
the mothers of this land can live as they ought to live.” This is the 
character and opinion presented by the highest State official that 
woman suffrage has as yet given to the United States of America. 
Do we want any more of them? Will not American women express 
their disapproval and disgust at such sentiments as these? We 
anti-suffragists glory over the fact that Utah is not an “anti” State. 
What would Miss Shaw say of us, “antis” and “polygamists!” Yet 
it has stood for forty years, and still stands, to as great a measure 
as they dare, woman suffrage and polygamy! Woman suffrage 
and polygamy, men and women with full political power, and re¬ 
ligious freedom, were working together, and yet Mrs. Cannon and 
the woman suffragists speak of purifying politics! Here is their 
best example after a test of forty years and more. Why do the 
suffragists have so little to say about Utah? And why are there 
more Mormons in the four suffrage States than in all of our other 
States put together? Is it true that women will uplift the condition 
of women? Look to Utah and find the answer, because there they 
have full political power like men. 

The question of woman suffrage should be summed up in this 
way: Has granting the ballot to women in the two suffrage States 
where they have had it for forty years brought about any great 
reforms or great results? No—^Wyoming has many more men than 


The Position of the Anti-Suffragists 


21 


women, so the results cannot be measured. The Mormon women 
of Utah are not free American citizens. They are under the Elder’s 
supreme power and vote accordingly, and polygamy has been main¬ 
tained by the woman’s vote, and is still to be found, although for¬ 
bidden, because women have political power. 

Have the saloons been abolished in any of the suffrage States? 
No. 

Do men still drink and gamble ? Yes, without doubt. 

Have the slums been done away with ? Indeed no. 

Are the streets better cleaned in the States where women vote? 
No, they are quite as bad as in New York City and elsewhere. 

Have the red-light districts been cleared away? Decidedly 
not, and they can be reckoned upon as a political factor, when they 
are really needed. 

Have women purified politics? No, not in the least. 

Have women voted voluntarily? Some do; but thousands 
are carried to the polls in autos and carriages, otherwise they would 
not vote. 

Has pure food and pure milk been established by the woman’s 
vote? Not at all. 

Have women’s wages been increased because women vote ? 
No, indeed. 

Have women equal pay for equal work? Not any more than 
in New York City. 

Are there laws on the statute books that would give women 
equal pay for equal work? No, and never will be. 

Are women treated with more respect in the four suffrage 
States than elsewhere. Not at all,—certainly not in Utah,—and 
when political men and women are working together, all kinds of 
men speak to women, and women cannot do anything but tolerate 
the political intruder,—as men and women are equal where women 
vote. 

Women suffragists believe suffrage is a success in the above- 
mentioned four States—and they have ample suffrage testimony to 
satisfy them. 

The “antis” in their investigation find positive proof that many 
men and women can not tolerate the suffrage for women and pro¬ 
nounce it a failure. 

The real truth is that woman suffrage is absolutely futile, 


22 


The Annals of the American Academy 


neither good nor bad, but unnecessary. What women accom¬ 
plish in all other States zidthout the votes, that denotes progress, 
reforms and betterment of conditions for women, children and 
humanity, is solely attributed to the ballot in the States where 
women vote. The franchise granted to women, means a doubling 
of all the evils now existing in manhood suffrage and this cannot 
mean progress. 

‘Tn the tabernacle of life, man dwells in the outer courts, wo¬ 
man ministers at the holy of holies—her influence upon humanity is 
so primal, so intimate, so dominant, that it might seem almost divine. 
Herein lies her superiority. In coarse and common service, in the 
race of the swift and the battle of the strong, man immeasurably 
outstrips her. In the higher service of love, which lies above 
battle-field and race course, of whose ministry God himself is the 
only examplar, she holds a position so advanced that man is not 
even her competitor.” 


THE WOMAN SUFFRAGE MOVEMENT IN GREAT 
BRITAIN 


By Alice Paul, 
Moorestown, N. J. 


In 1832 the franchise which had previously belonged to women 
was taken from them, and its loss seems to have aroused scarcely a 
murmur of protest. Now, after the lapse of less than one hundred 
years, the demand of women for the vote has grown so insistent that 
their enfranchisement cannot much longer be delayed. And this de¬ 
mand is not confined to a small group of intellectuals, as in the 
early days of the agitation, but is coming from the hearts of women 
of all classes—the mill girl, the university woman, the member of 
the nobility. 

This alteration in the attitude toward the franchise is of pro¬ 
found significance as an indication of the great change which has 
been going on, quietly and almost unnoticed, in the economic and 
social life of woman. The suffrage movement is a milestone mark¬ 
ing another step in her evolution. “To give votes to women would 
be a revolution,” one is told again and again in Great Britain. But 
the revolution is already accomplished. The giving of the ballot 
would be but the public recognition of the change which social 
forces have brought about. 

Industrial development has created a situation in which there 
are five million women in the labor market. In Lancashire sixty- 
two per cent, go out to work. In Manchester and Birmingham 
sixty-three per cent. In Stockport and Dundee even a larger num¬ 
ber. It is too late now to say to these communities: “Women 
should not vote, their place is the home.” It might have been 
listened to in the days before the industrial revolution, when woman’s 
work was done in her home. But now she has been forced to play 
her part in the world in competition with men. It was inevitable 
that she should protest against being handicapped in this struggle 
by the denial of the protection of the ballot. 

Educational opportunities for women have been won at last, 
though there is still much to be obtained. To-day one listens with 

(23) 




24 


The Annals of the American Academy 


wonder as the elder women tell of the bitter opposition which 
greeted their entrance into the educational world. At Oxford and 
Cambridge we see a relic of the old barriers in the refusal of the 
universities to grant their degrees to women who have completed 
the work and who may have passed the examinations with higher 
honors than have any of the men. Again, in the technical instruc¬ 
tion which is being introduced to-day one sees the same old sex 
discrimination, almost all of the opportunities for technical training 
being given to boys. 

In the professional world she has forced her way, though 
here, too, there are still some gates that are barred. All the higher 
positions under the government are closed to her, and she is ex¬ 
cluded from the legal profession, for example. One begins to 
realize, however, how much has been achieved when one listens to 
a woman doctor telling of her early days—of the ridicule and even 
personal violence which the pioneers had to face. And it is even 
a greater step to the time when Dr. Johnson denounced portrait 
painting and literature as unsuitable pursuits for “delicate fe¬ 
males”—and the world apparently, agreed. 

The British woman takes much greater part in political life than 
does the woman in our own country. For a long time she has been in 
evidence at every election, canvassing and speaking for the various 
men’s parties. From instructing the electors how to vote to demand¬ 
ing the ballot for herself was but a natural step. The first Prim¬ 
rose dame was the mother of the Suffragettes. And yet it is not 
so long ago that the political field, too, was closed. One who is still 
active in public life has told us that in her youth it was only by being 
concealed behind curtains that she could attend a political meeting— 
so improper was the appearance of a woman at such an affair 
considered. 

In social activities, again one sees the revolution in her 
status. To-day, when her active help is sought whenever a scheme 
for social reform is undertaken, it is difficult to realize that as re¬ 
cently as 1840, at an anti-slavery conference in London, the women 
delegates were refused admittance by the men. 

The laws have not kept pace with this changed position of 
women, though the old divine right of husbands has been some¬ 
what modified. In 1882 the married woman’s property act gave 


Woman Suffrage Movement in Great Britain 


25 


her some measure of legal freedom. But even to-day the married 
woman has no claim whatever upon her husband for maintenance, 
except that he may not allow her to reach a state of such starvation 
as to make her chargeable to the parish. Even though he be a 
millionaire his wife can legally claim from him nothing beyond this 
minimum necessary to preserve life. The wife, it should be noticed, 
is liable for the support of her husband. 

The divorce laws are notoriously unfair. While a man can 
secure divorce on the ground of his wife’s adultery, she must prove 
in addition to adultery, cruelty or bigamy, or two years’ deser¬ 
tion. The legacy laws also discriminate against her. One of the 
most grievous hardships is in the law which gives the entire con¬ 
trol of the children to the father, when the parents live together, 
and allows him to dispose of them without regard to the wishes of 
the mother. 

A man’s right of control over the person of his wife has been 
greatly decreased. In the famous Jackson case it was decided that 
a husband may not imprison his wife. She is bound, however, to 
go with him anywhere at his desire. Recently a man in the Hamp¬ 
stead Infirmary, London, had the power, according to the law, to 
compel his wife to remain in the workhouse attached to the in¬ 
stitution, though by living with her family she was able to earn 
her living, and was anxious to do so. In one case the vice-chan¬ 
cellor held that it was the duty of the wife to submit to her husband 
in event of a difference of opinion and that the husband was “king 
and ruler in his own family.” 

In the world of ideas there has been even less reflection of the 
changed status of woman, and it is in this realm that the great 
battle, it seems to me, is being fought to-day. Current opinion at 
the end of the eighteenth century seems to have regarded a man as a 
personality—precious as a personality—but a woman as merely 
an appendage to man, and precious only because of her connection 
with him. “The chief end of man,” says the Scottish catechism is 
“to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.” But the chief end of 
woman seems to have been held, as Mrs. Fawcett put it, “To glorify 
man and to help him enjoy himself for a little time.” This old 
idea of women as created solely in order to minister to man is akin 
to the idea that the working man’s whole purpose in the world is to 



26 


The Annals of the American Academy 


contribute to the happiness of the upper classes. Both ideas have 
been hard to kill. Both still survive in this country, we know, but 
apparently are much more widely held in Great Britain. In the 
homes of the five million women wage-earners the “half angel, half 
idiot” conception of woman, has died a natural death. In the 
multitude of homes where she is the chief bread winner the old 
ideal, which presented weakness and dependence as her highest 
virtues, could not survive. These ideas, born of a different environ¬ 
ment than the present, are still, however, widely spread through 
the land. 

An account of the many restrictions surrounding women at the 
end of the eighteenth century makes strange reading in the present. 
But in reading of the ideals established for them then, there is no 
unfamiliar note. In England to-day those words of Rousseau might 
have been written: “To please, to be useful to us, to make us love 
and esteem them, to educate us when young and take care of us 
when grown up, to advise, to console, to render our lives easy, and 
agreeable; these are the duties of women at all times and what 
they should be taught in their infancy.” Mr. John Burns, a mem¬ 
ber of the present Cabinet, preached exactly this ideal to a class of 
graduating girls last year. The feeling that woman is an inferior 
is evident even in the social world of London, where, as Miss Ethel 
Arnold told us the other day, the first principle is that the men must 
be entertained whatever else happens. It is revealed in the cry of 
the gamin: “Votes for women, votes for dogs!” Constantly one sees 
this attitude in the press where a meeting is reported as of no im¬ 
portance, as “there were only women present.” The opposition to 
the suffrage is eloquent of this view of women. One finds it is not 
argument one is combating, but a deep-rooted prejudice, which 
feels that all is well when woman bows in reverence to man, and 
says with Milton’s Eve: 

“God is thy law, them mine; to know no more 
Is woman’s happiest knowledge and her praise.” 

It is cause for rejoicing, conditions being as they are, that the 
suffrage has not been won without a hard struggle in Great 
Britain, for the struggle has done much to help women throw off 
their mental bondage. It has kindled in their hearts a great spirit 


Woman Suffrage Movement in Great Britain 


27 


of rebellion against their subjection. It has developed a self- 
respect, a respect for their sex, unknown before. On all hands one 
hears it said: “A new race of women is developing before our 
eyes”—a type which has discarded the old ideal of physical, and 
mental, and moral dependence, and has substituted the ideal of 
strength. 


ANSWER TO THE ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF 
WOMAN SUFFRAGE^ 


By Lyman Abbott, 
Editor-in-Chief The Outlook, New York. 


In my study of the suffrage movement, and it has been a subject 
of study with me for fifty years past, I have discovered but five 
arguments in support of this revolutionary demand. 

It is claimed that the suffrage is a natural right, as much so as 
the rights of person and of property, and that we must do justice 
though the heavens fall. The notion that suffrage is a natural right 
is a relic of the French Revolution which has not survived in 
political philosophy the doctrinaires who gave birth to it. The 
rights of person are absolute and unconditioned. Whatever his age 
and condition, the child has a right to his life—killing the unborn 
infant is murder; his right to his property is absolute and uncondi¬ 
tioned—if he is not old enough to administer it himself, a guardian 
is appointed, or his natural guardian is intrusted with its keeping 
and its care. But the right of suffrage is always determined by the 
community which grants it; it depends upon an age artificially de¬ 
termined on, upon a residence artificially defined. The would-be 
voter must have resided in the Nation a certain number of years, 
in the State a certain number of months, in the District a certain 
number of days. In some States he must have an educational quali¬ 
fication, in others a property qualification, and in others he must have 
paid taxes. But the payment of taxes does not give him a right to 
vote. He may pay taxes in every State in the Union, and in every 
county of the State, but he can vote only in one county of one State. 
Suffrage is a prerogative conferred by the community and condi¬ 
tioned when it is conferred. A man has no more natural right to 
vote in a political campaign than he has to vote in a State 
Legislature. 

It is claimed that women must be given the suffrage to protect 
themselves from the injuries inflicted on them by men. I confess 

'Reprinted by permission from a paper on “The Profession of Motherhood,” by 
Lyman Abbott in The Outlook, April 10, 1909. 

(28) 




Anszver to Arguments in Support of Woman Suffrage 29 

that this claim arouses my indignation. To set class against class 
is bad, to set race against race is worse, to set religion against 
religion is even more perilous; but to set sex against sex is a degra¬ 
dation so deep that political polemics can no further go. That a 
hundred years ago women suffered under legal limitations which 
worked injustice is undoubtedly true. Some of them were framed 
for women’s protection; others of them were a relic of an earlier 
barbarism. Both have disappeared with advancing civilization. All 
lawyers know that the prejudice of all juries and of many judges 
is in favor of woman in any case in which a woman is involved. All 
legislators know that a woman’s lobby is a most difficult one to 
resist. If there are any disabilities under which women still suffer 
because they are women, I venture to affirm that a common appeal 
by women would invariably and quickly bring their repeal. I do 
not forget the appeal made last year by the teachers of New York 
City for a law requiring equal wages for equal work. But it was not 
an appeal by woman for woman; it was an appeal by a special class 
for that class. It was rightly vetoed by the Governor, for it vio¬ 
lated the fundamental principle which has prevailed throughout 
the State of New York and, I believe, throughout all other States, 
according to which the details of school administration are left to 
the district in which the schools are situated; and it was irrational, 
because no man can exert a woman’s influence and no woman can 
exert a man’s influence in the school-room, so that neither can do 
the other’s work. That the suffrage is not necessary to protect 
woman against the oppressions of man is strikingly illustrated by a 
recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which 
it was decided that a law limiting the hours of woman’s labor in the 
factory is constitutional and that she has a special right to protection 
by the law because of her special disadvantages, a right which the 
man working at her side does not possess. 

This decision, rendered by a masculine court, upon briefs 
presented by masculine lawyers, serves to furnish at least an illus¬ 
trative reply to those who contend that woman’s suffrage is neces¬ 
sary to benefit the condition of woman wage-earners. Whatever 
legislation can accomplish for women wage-earners, this decision 
makes clear, can be accomplished under present conditions. What 
cannot be accomplished by legislation cannot be accomplished by 
suffrage. I have looked in vain in the publications of the woman 


30 


The Annals of the American Academy 


suffragists for any facts to show even remotely that political suffrage 
involves economic gain. It is true that the farm laborers of England 
obtained the. suffrage and afterwards obtained increase of wages, 
but post hoc is not propter hoc, nor has any evidence been adduced 
that the improved industrial conditions were due to the changed 
political conditions. In our own country it is certain that the in¬ 
dustrial condition of t'he negro under limited suffrage is far better 
than it was in the reconstruction period under unlimited suffrage, 
but it would be illogical to claim that the limitation of the suffrage 
has promoted economic welfare. 

It is also claimed, with what adequacy of evidence I do not 
know, that wage-earning women desire the ballot, not merely, per¬ 
haps not mainly, because it will increase their wage, but because, 
as a symbol of equality, it would secure for them a greater respect 
in business dealings with men. The fact that twenty per cent, of 
women are wage-earners and that only five per cent, of the women 
in industrial Massachusetts voted that they wished the suffrage, 
does not confirm this claim. But were it true, what then? Over 
two-thirds of the wage-earning women in the United States cease to 
be wage-earners at thirty-five; over half cease to be wage-earners 
at twenty-five; that is, wage-earning largely ceases at the marrying 
age. It would be interesting to know how many of the wage-earn¬ 
ing women who want the ballot as a symbol of equality before 
marriage desire its responsibilities after marriage. Certainly it is 
clear that those responsibilities should not be imposed on eighty 
per cent, of the women of the United States on a vague suspicion 
that an unknown proportion of twenty per cent, of temporarily em¬ 
ployed wage-earners think it might add to their business standing 
during their temporary engagement in business. 

Finally, we are asked to impose the ballot upon women as a 
means of securing moral reforms which the men are either unwilling 
or incompetent to accomplish. Perhaps the argument which has 
been most effective to counterbalance the objection of women to 
assume the responsibilities of the suffrage has been the argument 
that they could vote for the abolition of the saloon. In the ancient 
legend, St. George rescues the maiden from the dragon. I confess 
that I have small sympathy with the spirit which calls on the 
maiden to fight the dragon and leaves St. George on the other side 
of the wall looking on to see how the conflict will terminate. The 


Ansiver to Arguments in Support of Woman Suffrage 31 

women who are affected by this argument, and perhaps the women 
who use it, forget that Hebrew history had a Jezebel as well as a 
Queen Esther, and a European history a Lucretia Borgia and a 
Catherine de Medici as well as a Queen Victoria. Vice, ignorance, 
and superstition are not confined to either sex. Advocates of 
woman’s suffrage aver improvement of conditions in woman suf¬ 
frage States; opponents of woman’s suffrage aver deteriorated con¬ 
ditions in woman suffrage States. Into the contention between 
these two classes of observers, each of whom probably see what 
they wish to see, I decline to enter. I accept instead the testimony 
of such impartial observers as the President of the United States, 
who has said: “I am unable to see that there has been any special 
improvement in the position of women in those States in the 
West that have adopted woman suffrage as compared with those 
States adjoining them that have not adopted it. I do not think 
that giving the women suffrage will produce any marked improve- 
men in the condition of women.” I accept the testimony of Mr. 
Root, in a published letter from him based on his certainly large 
opportunities for a study of this question: “I do not myself consider 
that the granting of suffrage to women would, under the existing 
conditions, be any improvement in our system of government. On 
the contrary, I think it would rather reduce than increase the elec¬ 
toral efficiency of our people.” I accept the testimony of Mr. 
James Bryce, as disinterested, impartial, and sympathetic an ob¬ 
server of American conditions as America has ever known: "‘No 
evidence has come in my way tending to show that politics either 
in Wyoming or in Washington are in any way purer than in the 
adjoining States and Territories. The most that seems to be 
alleged is that they are no worse; or, as the Americans express 
it, ‘Things are very much what they were before, only more so.’ ” 
This was published in 1888. It is safe to say that nothing has 
occurred within tlie last twenty years materially to change this 
judgment.^ 

President Roosevelt, in his address before the Mothers’ Meet¬ 
ing in Washington in 1905, said: “The primary duty of the husband 
is to be the home-maker, the breadwinner for his wife and children 

®For Mr. Roosevelt’s and Mr. Root’s letters see The Outlook for December 19, 
1908, p. 849 ; for Mr. Bryce’s testimony see The American Commonwealth, Vol. Ill, 
p. 29T. 


32 


The Annals of the American Academy 


(and, may I add, to be her protector from violence) ; the primary 
duty of the woman is to be the helpmeet, the housewife and 
mother.” In these words Mr. Roosevelt has gone to the heart of 
the woman question. The call to woman to leave her duty to take 
up man’s duties is an impossible call. The call on man to impose 
on woman his duty, in addition to hers, is an unjust call. Fathers, 
husbands, brothers, speaking for the silent women, I claim for them 
the right to be exempt in the future from the burden from which 
they have been exempt in the past. Mothers, wives, sisters, I urge 
you not to allow yourselves to be enticed into assuming functions 
for which you have no inclination, by appeals to your spirit of self- 
sacrifice. Woman’s instinct is the star that guides her to her 
divinely appointed life, and it guides to the manger where an infant 
is laid. 


WOMAN SUFFRAGE AN AID TO SOCIAL REFORM 


By Mrs. Frederick Nathan, 

Vice-President National Consumers’ League, and President Consumers’ 
League of the City of New York. 


After hearing the interesting addresses of those upon the 
evening’s program, it seems superfluous for me to add a jot of testi¬ 
mony. Yet, I appreciate your kindness in expressing a desire to 
have a few words from me, and, with your permission, I shall 
relate one or two personal experiences: 

I have, as you doubtless know, worked for many years in 
connection with the Consumers’ League, in endeavoring to secure 
protective legislation for working girls and children. Year after 
year I have gone to Albany to plead for shorter hours or for re¬ 
striction of night work, or for stricter supervision of dangerous 
machinery, left unguarded. Each year the fact is borne in upon me 
with greater and greater force that we women would not find it so 
difficult to secure legislation, were we the constituents of the 
legislators. For the legislators point out to us time and again that 
they are pledged to support the wishes of their constituents. I have 
noticed that the direct influence of the few merchants and manu¬ 
facturers who oppose our measures has apparently much more 
weight with them than the indirect influence of the thousands of 
women interested in having the measures passed. 

To give you one instance of this difference between direct 
influence and indirect influence, let me relate what happened last 
year when we tried to get the labor laws amended. We asked 
whether it would be possible to have a joint hearing of the bill 
before the Senate and Assembly committees, in order to be relieved 
of the necessity of going to Albany on two different occasions; we 
were told politely, but firmly, that it would be out of the question, 
that we would be obliged to attend the Assembly committee hearing 
on one day and the Senate committee hearing on another day later 
on. So several of us journeyed to Albany on the day fixed for the 
hearing before the Assembly committee, only to be told after reach¬ 
ing the Capitol, that the hearing had been postponed for one weelc. 

(33) 




34 


The Annals of the American Academy 


We asked why we had not been notified, and we were told that 
there had been no time to notify us. We ascertained later, how¬ 
ever, that the postponement had been arranged the evening before, 
(therefore a telegram or telephone message would have reached us) 
and had been due to the fact that one of the merchants opposing 
our measure had requested by telephone a joint hearing before the 
two committees, in order to be spared the necessity of making two 
trips to Albany! 

His request, which was identical with ours, was acceded to at 
once. Therefore, we women of the Consumers’ League were com¬ 
pelled to make two journeys, at double the expense, not only of 
transportation, but also of energy and time, merely because the 
indirect influence of the non-voter is not as efficacious as the direct 
influence of the voter. Moreover, when we finally presented our¬ 
selves at the Capitol for the joint hearing, which had been fixed 
for two p. m., we were compelled to wait more than three hours, 
and were then limited to twenty minutes to each side. A hearing 
on another bill was given precedence, without any time limit having 
been fixed. When I ingenuously asked for an explanation, I was 
told by one of the committee that the bill in question was a very 
important one, as the speakers represented a large number of 
voters. The bill was in reference to a demand on the part of 
Spanish-American War veterans to be excused from Civil Service 
examinations. 

As the opponents of all bills are heard first, the merchants 
who opposed our measure were heard shortly after five o’clock, and 
as they took more than their allotted time, it was nearly the hour 
of adjournment, according to the statement of the chairman, before 
we were able to present our side of the case. Hence only the most 
hurried and insufficient presentation was allowed us. 

On one occasion last year, when I was visiting the night court, 
there were twenty young women who had been arrested, brought 
before the magistrate. They were kept standing, crowded together 
in the room adjoining the court, and I noticed policemen and re¬ 
porters jostling by them, staring at them, and occasionally address¬ 
ing them. They had been arrested because they had been found 
presumably drinking, sitting in the back room of a saloon which 
had been raided. I asked where their male escorts were, for I 
felt sure the occupants of the room had not all been of the feminine 


Woman Suffrage an Aid to Social Reform 35 

sex. I was told that all the men had escaped. I was inclined to 
marvel at their unanimous agility until it was explained to me 
that men with political pulls were sometimes permitted to escape. 

Only recently when my friend, Miss Inez Milholland, was ar¬ 
rested for having lingered on the street to watch the picketing 
during the shirt-waist strike, she was held on charges, while her 
escort, Lieutenant Tawney, who had done no less than she had, was 
dismissed at once. The shirt-waist strikers, the majority of them 
frail young girls, were fined far more heavily and punished far 
more severely than were the striking taxi-cab chauffeurs of a year 
ago, although the latter committed much more violence and of a far 
more serious nature. 

In view of these facts, is it strange that many women feel that 
if they had the same political status as men, much of this flagrant 
injustice would cease? 

Now just a word in reference to a statement made by Mrs. Gil¬ 
bert Jones. If you will examine the labor laws of the different 
states, and the laws regarding equal pay for equal work, you will 
find that the four states in which women are enfranchised have 
the best laws for the protection of women and children of any four 
states in the Union. 


THE INADVISABILITY OF WOMAN SUFFRAGE^ 


By Rev. Charles H. Parkhurst, D. D., 
New York City. 


The problem we confront is not the mere problem of the 
ballot. That is but a feature. That ballot business is only a 
single aspect of a vastly larger whole—and the outdistancing con- 
spicuity into which that single aspect has been femininely foisted, 
suggests nothing so distinctly as it does the logical infirmity of 
mind which constitutes one of the weaknesses, and I might also say, 
one of the charms of the feminine constitution. Woman, of course, 
has a great deal that man has not, but her premises and her conclu¬ 
sions are apt to live so far apart as to fail of becoming more than 
imperfectly acquainted. This is spoken with no flavor of dis¬ 
respect. Neither sex has everything; otherwise there would have 
been no advantage in having two. 

Biologists tell us that the higher we go in the scale of animal 
life, the more the respective functions of the two sexes become 
differentiated, more and more widely separated from each other 
in their quality, aptitude and mission. From which we have to con¬ 
clude that the finer the type of human civilization, the more widely 
apart man and woman will become, in all that relates to the ingre¬ 
dients of their personality and therefore to their interests and their 
respective spheres of service. 

That is the first criticism to be passed on what is just now 
transpiring, that it is not being conducted on the basis of prin¬ 
ciples that have been thoroughly canvassed; that an attempt is 
being made to accomplish something without first discovering 
whether it fits logically into the framework of sociological prin¬ 
ciple and historic trend. 

No; we men have put woman on a high pedestal; not so far 
above us that we cannot reach her, but so far above us that we 
cannot reach her without reaching up. She will have to be in¬ 
finitely careful or she will knock herself off - that pedestal, and 
when she gets down to that point where the only recognizable differ- 

lExtracts from an address delivered in New York, December 17, 1909. 

(36) 




The Inadvisability of Woman Suffrage 37 

ence between her and man lies in the unlikeness of her garments 
and in some anatomical discrepancies, her supreme prerogative 
will all have been sacrificed, her distinctive influence as woman will 
all of it have gone. 

Woman will get all she wants if she is woman in her way of 
getting it; but if she is man in her way of getting it she will not get 
more than half of what she wants. So far as she resorts to purely 
masculine implements in her attainment of a feminine victory she 
will count only as man. One woman will count only as one man, 
whereas by endowment of nature and of God she ought to count 
as one and a fraction, perhaps two. Votes do not settle anything. 
The settling is all done before the balloting begins. Votes simply 
register what has been settled previously. If women will remain 
women, and very much so, and will recognize that as such they 
stand on higher ground than man and will stick to that higher 
ground, they will do the settling; whereas, if they come down to 
man’s lower level they will have to take their chances and will 
mean no more in the shaping of events than they would have done 
had they been born members of the other sex. 

The distinctive genius of woman is lodged not in her logical 
nor in her executive faculties, but in her sensibilities. Of course 
we are not so ignorant of history and of biography as not to 
know that there are exceptions to that, and very marked excep¬ 
tions. For instance, we have not forgotten Queen Elizabeth, who, 
however, in her general composition was far more masculine than 
feminine. We remember too that it is reported of Mary Somer¬ 
ville that she was the only person, male or female, that perfectly 
comprehended the Mecanique Celeste of La Place. But even so, 
the exceptions are insufficiently numerous to. invalidate the asser¬ 
tion, that woman’s genius is lodged in her sensibilities and there¬ 
fore in her faculty for appealing to personality, for the world is 
governed by heart and not by intellect, and woman has the heart; 
that is she has, if she is finely feminine, just as it is the caloric 
thread, not the luminous thread, of the sunbeam that makes the 
trees grow. So that whatever work woman does that does not 
involve the exercise of sensibilities is to that extent a waste of 


woman. 












r •' • 


* . , ;'•? V 




\, ^ 


v .’ ' ■ ■• li^'T**’ ■'• 

W.' - ■ ,v » 

• ' v % 


1. 


c* * 


' 


M 


4 I 


N' 


Sfc. 


^ 'L- ’ *"‘ 'I *j. •■• • y ’•» ' ' !*in ^ 

Bf V •■*•'■ 


• ^I'l 

‘r . ^ ^ ' 




ct 



!• • 


V’ 


- \ 


' y>‘ •■ 


f ■ V-.' 

i ' 'J « 1 ’•. . •* 


V 




^ J ' 

^ /v.f» V ■ • ■ > ,wm • * : : 

i’» ' ifTiaa^yVl^^ 

f ‘ ' /-fVi*'-‘>,.. 1 * VfCTO i • ,- • '-“»••■ 

A 4 ^ , I'* • * •_ l* • '1 ' i ^ %m. . ’ )k 

' * ’ *i,%' ' y* ^ ^ A ^ T. - * 7 -'. ’ i <,'■ 

B. ^ ‘ ,‘ '-'V' '■ •^ 

“■■ ■ ■ ,, -■■-■• i ■„%■' , * ■•■ ','■. Miifiii •'■.■< ,. ■ 



y^i 






.."* .r 


1 ^ 


;* 

»-• 


.\ .■ * ‘ ^ f 


* * V . > * s 


. '■ 


, -v 

./'■ 




^‘i. '■' -'K ^'• 


^ V. ‘I 




' • ■* 


• ^ 


<: 


• 1 r 


fa 

'I 

■hfl' y-^. 

♦*- ., 

>* 1‘ . 


n . •* I , 

/ 

.M . 




'i' 


. CrifAi - . -WV - , . -* r 

-* -fc * * 




/'•'J 

■ *; ' y/ 

, ■ '* * mfS 

■ - ^ ; , ' . 

. * S h. • 

*' 

' j*' 


. ' V' V 

• ^ 1 .• 


^ .A ' 

^‘V !• 

.■/rJ/i ' 

■V 

V ■ •■ .»• z 

1 

'• ..V . 

. . ,->i: 


; ^ y . * 

■ ; . :* . 

1? • 



4 

' ■ r 

V ' , 


• ♦ ■ • ,J t ' 1 

v\* •>« 

-rv ^ 


Vs' 


'W -' 




u 


- , -W. 

'f'r’,:: 


■ »4 


% I 


j * * «. 


■ A ■.;; 


- r 


•4 


'<*- 


'* '4 


i-f- 


V 




iir— '• •. ^ li . 

^ ■ JL ' m ** . s \i 

fi<:* . ...•,„ .•:--',.L-. 


’s . ’-Aj^*^- V'iV'Ml ,* ‘ 

' .,, » .'i-.'. ■•-‘d 

' s, ^ *ijK- ^ V sf* «•» 

‘ ‘^A-. 




■Ji."'■ .s'; 

' '■ ‘a ■' 






'i-^ j«S. 

r‘ 



• ^5it*v.' •>€' 

#. ^ 


• *r.i>^p^^KP ** • 

T.% *■ , 


t 


ila. jr.«« . tn ^ '/' ,1* 

felf .Urfe--.','’;', '-iiifr 








: tw 


; r I.V.- 







!Pr 



IT a 


^r_^ *. 


'Si '-i '' 


ii^-- - -■:^- ’ ' ■ ■ 4''fe«rS ‘’'';-*^'*rc^B|MBPrcT] ., •" ■■•■<"V ’ '>:v ^ 

. ■ ’" ’ ■„, _ ' • I V/v" ■ .' SSRlIl-^ 

KMV(, . '■.■,•'* .’V. ■• •■' ". ■■ ' 



* ♦ 


•r'' ' > i'*’:;’?.''; ■ a;, ' fJ-P ' 

W >->'. , 4ft ii - - V* 

r^ K • ^ • • ^ .', -• . * V sV ir / •' 


rvj^. Vt ■ , » ' ’ "'*‘^1 • -i'' ..V 


P^ .f V . 'N" C*^ , * • -'.I ■' ji M isirS iijv''* 


W* > 



•* •^' 


t * 


':,*/. ' ■ A ■ ' 




y '*Jr *iL-' 

I w / ^ 




} ilA 


u 


W' ■ 


1^ 


IJik. 


\ y 


i^fvTr^'^'' 

1^. 


■ ^ 

n :\l-^ 


•' 


i ' » - i, 

vl i •• 






ir 




■J| V f ^.*1 1 V, , / 




- 3 ?' ii' Jk' “-'V ,' '“V / ’ ' ' . , 

^ S ■ '\ ‘ ;4, !ii' '''- ** •■' * f- ■ ' >■' , , ■ » 

Kh-;-''-.. -.®:-- ■■ '■• W4'sl*^ 

ES^i irf" ■ ■ ..V ., S* ' ‘■’^ iSl.' .■; •. -£jt,.:'\-''. ','.■ f ,'.Jr**l' ' ■'S -“ a'^ ■.♦' 


29 


>■* 


' ’ ^ ' * 4 ^ firf ^ i ♦ i * 

>. : ?yy: 




<( r* J 

T ■ ' * T 


V. ». 


_* V.' I ' **• Ti 




^ j 




V 


. fc' 





y. 4 ^' > r. 

t; t 

• .r •'• * 

■ ■■ ,.;:.■^^-' 

iK'M-yy 



■t l^Hl.:"', .y J ' 

:. >* 5’ 

i I 1- t f ' ,■>' 




Ij., »f 






f. ,»■;■■ ,■.v.'isjai: ■,■^.'.. ,.>?< ,, ;„/ ?Jia 


^ is f- (.'„< >'^‘* V ,vJ 

v F t*^ 

>.■• . ■> k»J f.' ; . Jy 



■ ♦51: ■> 


'' ' ‘ - It 1 . ; I ' iW '-''i 

„ ^ ' ^Vv ^ k. 1 

C^ iV r‘‘'A ^ * '■ ^ f • ' / v * 

^ iJwIwt •'‘o' ‘ 


I f “4 ' tw V t-. 

• 7. ^ 'Ml*-' . .^’‘• 


J <*; 

i'^ 




*1 


V. ft • 


V \ 


f ■'> 


y/^ * V , ^ ' 


% • I * ., 4i ') ‘ 

F’ ‘ iV’i 


■=^ ■ ■•- : v,.A, F .,;' ■ -'4f/ ;V;' F 

* *.Ji^ * -•ij*,!- WMr^O -fnlCSf ' 


- *'t . 




rf*-- 


: ■•.• ■.'■v.:. ^. ■•' '•#>■■■, 


14 


♦ f 


I ) 


* . 


h- 


A' t 

'<• * « . 




‘‘ f 


.. V ■ 




•/.;,. ..; 

' !'■ 


> ?« 







)> -J 




I.. 1 




■-V,. V F> ''’^ .trw,F' ' , 

‘■r v.'-:' '^^^^ilifillL*'!.': iif 


itf ' 

\ 


4.-S- ’ -'isW' 


fiJl.,.'’ I 


W 







































































